Ntagali summons petitioners over Kigezi bishop

Nov 15, 2013

The Arch Bishop of the Church of Uganda, Stanley Ntagali has summoned a group of Christian who petitioned court over the election of Rev. Can. George Bagamuhunda as the new Bishop of Kigezi Diocese.

By Vision Reporter

The Arch Bishop of the Church of Uganda, Stanley Ntagali has summoned a group of Christian who petitioned court over the election of Rev. Can. George Bagamuhunda as the new Bishop of Kigezi Diocese.

Rev Bagamuhunda was elected last year on August 15.

This is the second meeting the Archbishop will be holding with the aggrieved members of Kigezi diocese. The first meeting at the Synod Hall in Kabale Municipality never yielded results.

Five people from the group that claims to number 1005, on last week filed a case at the civil division of the High Court in Kampala.

trueThey are seeking permission to file a representative suit. Bagamuhunda's consecration is slated for next year January 19.

They contend that the process of Bagamuhunda's election was grossly irregular. The petitioners allege that it was conducted "in violation of the Constitution of Church of Uganda and the Diocesan Constitution.

The five are; Wilson Kibagaho, Skyluck Kagoma, Henry Magara, William Byabagambi, and Elison Twinamatsiko. They petitioned through Tumwesigye, Baingana and Company Advocates.

The petition is against the Registered Trustees of the Church of the Province of Uganda, and the Registered Trustees of Diocese of Kigezi.  Others are Rt. Rev. Bishop George Katwesigye, and Bagamuhunda.

Kibagaho has sworn an affidavit in support of the petition, stating that the members of the laity were never taken into consideration in the process to Bagamuhunda's election.

"There was no equal representation from the house of Clergy and house of Laity," Kibagaho states, adding that the respondents have intended to continue with the consecration without resolving the laity's grievances.

Explaining the need for the representative suit, Kibagaho asserts that it will avoid a multiplicity of suits. He states that it would be convenient to hear the case through representative action.

The petition notes that it is not possible and practicable for the petitioners to file individual suits.

Court is yet to schedule a date to hear the application for leave to grant permission to file the representative suit.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});